This is a question that has entered my mind somewhat recently and I wanted to get some opinions on it. This isn't asking what the difference is between the two but where exactly is the line drawn that distinguishes the two.

The generally accepted view is that statues are immovable pieces meant purely for display while figures are designed to have things such as action features, different mixes of plastics/metals as well as the intention for moving parts. Normally this should be all that is needed: Statues are sculpted in one specific pose while figures feature articulation for different poses.

That however brings up another problem: How little articulation is needed for something to be considered one or the other?

To give an example, retro Kenner Star Wars figures featured at most 4 points of articulation in the shoulders and hips. Not very articulated but accepted as figures.

Let's bump that down to just two. No doubt we've all owned or at least seen plenty of figures that may only have something like articulation in the shoulders. Immovable hunks of plastic that only generate movement those specific areas, yet we still accept that like with the above.

Enter Pic Rel. It's a character from One Piece that comes from a line of statues called Portrait of Pirates. Very popular with collectors. Why I'm using this one as an example is because it too also features two points of articulation in the shoulders, same as plenty of other figures in the past. He also features interchangeable parts, so there is a level of action feature playability that puts him above even some figures that don't do such.

If a "statue" like that can feature the same amount of playability as any other "figure" then what else is needed to distinguish the difference?